lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: any value in centralizing a defn of "RUN_AT()"?
On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:18:17 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>
> i notice that a number of drivers duplicate a macro definition of
> RUN_AT():
>
> drivers/staging/vt6655/device.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
> drivers/net/irda/au1k_ir.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/hamachi.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/tulip/tulip.h:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/wireless/airo.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies+(x))
> drivers/net/rrunner.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/bnx2.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/3c59x.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
> drivers/net/fealnx.c:#define RUN_AT(x) (jiffies + (x))
>
> etc, etc. any value in just defining that once in jiffies.h and
> letting everyone use that?

Yes IMO.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-16 17:25    [W:0.054 / U:1.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site